You're in favor of denying rights to a group of people based on a trait they don't control. What would you care to call it?

As I've written extensively on, one cannot deny the "right" for same-sex people to "marry" because "marriage" between two people of the same sex is a logical absurdity. One cannot pass a law to repeal gravity any more than one can pass a law to "allow" same-sex "marriages."

And yet, 10's of thousands of loving homosexual couples are legally married here in the state of MA. Where I come from, we call that an "unmitigated fact." Weird, ain't it?

To tackle some things here, let me begin with Omega:What you are is doing is defining marriage and pushing your own definition as law. Partly you say it's about reproduction... but what about a heterosexual couple who gets married but they have no intentions to have children - is that OK? Why is your opinion on what the purpose of marriage should be more sacred?

What about a couple that CANT have children? The woman had a hysterectomy, and the man had his testicles removed due to cancer.

The fact is that Omegas definition of marriage, or what he says is the real historical and traditional definition of marriage, is just plain factually incorrect. That puts his entire argument out the window before it is even started.

The institution of marriage isn't some petty, meaningless, nonchalant "right"; it is an enormous act of privilege and responsibility tasked with the most important of goals: the procreation and raising of new, productive members of society.

The only parenting problem typically encountered by same sex couples is their children being bullied by homophobes.

The only parenting problem typically encountered by same sex couples is their children being bullied by homophobes.

The parenting problems seen by same sex couples are the same parenting problems seen by all parents. All parents have their strengths and weaknesses in parenting. The biggest issue I see with same sex parents is that it does kids a world of good to have close relationships with people of both sexes. This can be easily accomplished by being close to grandparents or an aunt or uncle, but I think it's important for same sex couple to consciously foster these relationships. Boys in particular really need a good male influence in their life.

(so ignoring all historical facts of what the institution of marriage actually was)

Omega: how can you possibly call for the Aristotelian definition of "good" and then NOT find two people choosing not to procreate not good? As per your explanation, a couple choosing not to have children would not be natural (again, as per your definition of natural) since they have the parts and physiological compulsions to do so, would be illogical, not-good, and "absurd"

Also, how is polygamy not good as per your definition? Nature exhibits cases of communal care (primates), couple care (penguins), single care (Tigers) and no care (salmon, after eggs hatch). Why then is a a marriage between a single male and a single female the only good?

The parenting problems seen by same sex couples are the same parenting problems seen by all parents. All parents have their strengths and weaknesses in parenting. The biggest issue I see with same sex parents is that it does kids a world of good to have close relationships with people of both sexes. This can be easily accomplished by being close to grandparents or an aunt or uncle, but I think it's important for same sex couple to consciously foster these relationships. Boys in particular really need a good male influence in their life.

I agree for the most part, but keep in mind that single parents also face this problem. As I see it, homophobia is the only issue exclusive to same sex parents.

The parenting problems seen by same sex couples are the same parenting problems seen by all parents. All parents have their strengths and weaknesses in parenting. The biggest issue I see with same sex parents is that it does kids a world of good to have close relationships with people of both sexes. This can be easily accomplished by being close to grandparents or an aunt or uncle, but I think it's important for same sex couple to consciously foster these relationships. Boys in particular really need a good male influence in their life.

I agree for the most part, but keep in mind that single parents also face this problem. As I see it, homophobia is the only issue exclusive to same sex parents.

Oh yeah, I agree. I wasn't arguing that same sex parents shouldn't be allowed.

I'm bi, and don't particularly desire marriage to either a man or a woman, ever. I fully support equal rights for any couple that does want to enter marriage though - just that personally I don't give a damn about arbitrary social institutions and public ceremonies that 'prove' a coupling - if I want a lifelong monogamous partner to know I love and trust them, then my private word to them would be a million times more sincere than any bullshit ceremony.

You're in favor of denying rights to a group of people based on a trait they don't control. What would you care to call it?

As I've written extensively on, one cannot deny the "right" for same-sex people to "marry" because "marriage" between two people of the same sex is a logical absurdity. One cannot pass a law to repeal gravity any more than one can pass a law to "allow" same-sex "marriages."

And yet, 10's of thousands of loving homosexual couples are legally married here in the state of MA. Where I come from, we call that an "unmitigated fact." Weird, ain't it?

Yeah, that analogy is utterly bizarre. It's absolutely incredible that someone would make it, in fact. It is so contrary to observed facts that it sounds like satire.

Logged

"In the beginning, the universe was created. This made a lot of people very angry, and has been widely regarded as a bad idea."

You're in favor of denying rights to a group of people based on a trait they don't control. What would you care to call it?

As I've written extensively on, one cannot deny the "right" for same-sex people to "marry" because "marriage" between two people of the same sex is a logical absurdity. One cannot pass a law to repeal gravity any more than one can pass a law to "allow" same-sex "marriages."

And yet, 10's of thousands of loving homosexual couples are legally married here in the state of MA. Where I come from, we call that an "unmitigated fact." Weird, ain't it?

Yeah, that analogy is utterly bizarre. It's absolutely incredible that someone would make it, in fact. It is so contrary to observed facts that it sounds like satire.

As I've written extensively on, one cannot deny the "right" for same-sex people to "marry" because "marriage" between two people of the same sex is a logical absurdity. One cannot pass a law to repeal gravity any more than one can pass a law to "allow" same-sex "marriages."

On the contrary, they repealed Newton's Law of Gravity and replaced it with a more up to date version in 1916.

On topic, the OP quote is right up there with "I'm not racist, but..." in terms of hypocritical statements.

A refreshing glimmer of sanity in the darkening abyss of the ever-more secularized and increasingly relativist United States of America.

This is very common rhetoric of the religious right, and I'm still flummoxed by it. I don't understand the disdain for non-religious matters implied by using "secular" as a sneering description of non-Christian things and beliefs.

Also, while reality is absolute (running into a brick wall will kill you no matter how much you believe otherwise), the way we perceive it is entirely relative. Your beliefs are relativism. You think they make the most sense relative to the other beliefs you have been exposed to. They are not absolutely true.

The institution of marriage isn't some petty, meaningless, nonchalant "right"; it is an enormous act of privilege and responsibility tasked with the most important of goals: the procreation and raising of new, productive members of society. Marriage doesn't exist merely so that Bob and Steve can play House together in their forties. And if you think otherwise, then you've either misunderstood the gravity, pertinence and seriousness of the institution of marriage or are willfully and disingenuously insisting on a baseless "redefinition" of "marriage."

Marriage is about more than having and raising children. It's also about two people who love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together. Are you married? Do you love your wife? If Bob and Steve love each other, then why are you completely unaffected by that?

It's ironic to me that, as grandiosely as you treat your beliefs, that the idea of marriage as merely a means to have and raise babies is extremely prosaic. Wouldn't you think that something created by God would have more of a spiritual side to it than that?

You're in favor of denying rights to a group of people based on a trait they don't control. What would you care to call it?

As I've written extensively on, one cannot deny the "right" for same-sex people to "marry" because "marriage" between two people of the same sex is a logical absurdity. One cannot pass a law to repeal gravity any more than one can pass a law to "allow" same-sex "marriages."

If you're speaking from a Biblical definition of marriage, then yes, you are right.

But human society, more and more, has decided to change the definition of marriage. No matter how much you argue against it, you cannot stop it. Marriage already is basically a secular institution. If two people can go and get married at a courthouse by a judge, it's not really a religious institution anymore.

@ Reap: Omega has mentioned before that he's not married, and as he says, too young to consider it.

Two thoughts come into my mind:

- My mind is partially blown. If you're too young to even consider marriage, then why does this bother you? Why do you think you understand it?

- My mind is not at all blown. Based on your post, I'm guessing Omega is like 17-19? I'm still an idiot at 23, which means I was unfathomably dumb at that age. At that point, basic concepts like human empathy still aren't fully formed in your mind.

@ Reap: Omega has mentioned before that he's not married, and as he says, too young to consider it.

- My mind is partially blown. If you're too young to even consider marriage, then why does this bother you? Why do you think you understand it?

He sees the idealized & romanticized versions of marriage which only existed in the past two centuries or so as crucial for maintaining (and creating) human civilization. The very existence of our species is at stake!

I'm fine with having Civil Unions. But If they want to have a big Church wedding then the church has rules to abide by and Gay Marriage is one, until time passes. Most people see it as unnatural, as in theirs no duality. Some see it as an upbringing while others have many other reasons for not understanding homosexuals. If they want to get married I'd say let them, as love is love and doesn't bother me nor anyone.

One thing to consider is no,one knows how things we're back when Jesus walked. Was he accepting of it? did it exist then?

But yeah, Marriage under the church is man and woman. Civil Unions, legal rights are between whomever.

Logged

I don't know how they can be so proud of winning with them odds. - Little Big Man

I'm sure Shadow meant that he can't understand how someone would practically disown their child over an issue such as this. Of all the things that I might disown a child for, "having a sexual orientation" is not one of them, of course.

The video was a bummer but I don't think it's going to make a difference in the discussion here. It wouldn't change anybody's mind about gay marriage. This issue is unfortunately one where people just get entrenched in their original views.

I'm sure Shadow meant that he can't understand how someone would practically disown their child over an issue such as this. Of all the things that I might disown a child for, "having a sexual orientation" is not one of them, of course.

I figured...but to me that's a very important distinction. And the more controversial the issue, the more important it becomes to make these things clear.

The more controversial the topic, the more that "blanket statements" will tend to polarize the conversation.

Logged

"Better the pride that resides in a citizen of the world.Than the pride that divides when a colorful rag is unfurled." - Neil Peart

^ Well, I have to be honest, I am not a father (I am only 20), but I just can't imagine disowning my child for anything. I'm sure I could, but it would have to something that extremely made by angry and appalled.

However, to not get off topic, I do not think (unfortunately) that that video will have any major impact, as many similar ones (different circumstances, of course) have been posted over the history of YouTube, but I am hoping it can make a personal impact on certain detractors to gay marriage and/or rights.

@ Reap: Omega has mentioned before that he's not married, and as he says, too young to consider it.

Two thoughts come into my mind:

- My mind is partially blown. If you're too young to even consider marriage, then why does this bother you? Why do you think you understand it?

- My mind is not at all blown. Based on your post, I'm guessing Omega is like 17-19? I'm still an idiot at 23, which means I was unfathomably dumb at that age. At that point, basic concepts like human empathy still aren't fully formed in your mind.

As someone with a child who is considerably older than you, I would say, based on the posts I have seen here from you (even some that I do not always agree with) that you are FAR from "an idiot" (although I know what you meant). You demonstrate wisdom considerably past your years, sir. My hat is off to you.

Obama says he supports gay marriage now. About time he just came out and said it. I think it's been obvious for a while that he was for it, but didn't want to hurt his political career by comeing right out and saying it.

A refreshing glimmer of sanity in the darkening abyss of the ever-more secularized and increasingly relativist United States of America.

Why don't you put youir money where your mouth is and demand the death penalty for homesexuality?

"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)

Just sayin'

Nothing like cherry picking a verse to serve a purpose. Levitical law is Old covenant, and Christ followers shouldnt be too concerned with a set of laws theyve been redeemed from. If you can find me a verse where Jesus (New Covenant)tells me I need to kill all gays then id be impressed. But I suspect your google search won't reveal that for you.